JONATHAN TURLEY: Shapiro could’ve been a contender, but he caved to the loons
Josh Shapiro's Defining Moment and the Rise of Radical Court Reform
JONATHAN TURLEY - When Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro appeared on MS NOW's "Morning Joe," he seized the opportunity to announce his shift toward a more radical agenda, abandoning the centrist stance that once defined his political career. This moment, described by Jonathan Turley as a "Terry Malloy" moment, echoes the despair of the iconic film character who lamented his lost chance to rise above mediocrity. Shapiro’s decision to endorse court packing—calling for "radical reform of the court"—marks a pivotal turning point, signaling his alignment with progressive Democrats eager to reshape the judiciary to reflect their ideological priorities.
The Terry Malloy Analogy and Shapiro's Political Shift
In the classic film *On the Waterfront*, Terry Malloy’s anguished declaration—"You don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it"—captures the essence of a politician who sacrifices principle for expediency. Shapiro, according to Turley, has similarly chosen to prioritize short-term political gains over long-term institutional integrity. By joining the chorus of Democratic leaders advocating for a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, he has effectively ceded his potential to lead a moderate alternative within his party.
The Democratic Establishment's Radical Turn
Shapiro’s embrace of court-packing rhetoric aligns him with figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren and former presidential candidates like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, who have increasingly positioned themselves as champions of a socialist movement within the Democratic Party. While these leaders argue that the current court has strayed from representing the people’s will, their calls for expansion reveal a deeper ambition: to dismantle the judiciary’s role as a counter-majoritarian check. This shift has raised concerns about the erosion of constitutional principles and the growing influence of radical ideologies on mainstream politics.
Shapiro's Jewish Identity and the Antisemitism Debate
Shapiro’s Jewish heritage has become a point of contention, with some critics suggesting that his rejection as a vice presidential candidate in 2020 stemmed from his perceived alignment with conservative values. This factor adds a layer of complexity to his current stance, as he now advocates for policies that some argue could exacerbate antisemitism within the Democratic Party. His decision to support court packing despite the current majority’s recent rulings—such as the one on birthright citizenship—highlights a broader pattern of yielding to pressure from radical factions, even as the judiciary continues to uphold its independence.
The Framers' Vision and the Threat of Mobocracy
The Supreme Court was conceived as a bulwark against the excesses of majority rule, a design that the Framers believed would safeguard minority rights and prevent popular whims from destabilizing the Constitution. As Turley explains in his book *Rage and the Republic*, the Founders deliberately structured the judiciary to act as a counterbalance, fearing that direct democratic systems would lead to "mobocracy"—a term coined by Benjamin Rush to describe government controlled by the masses without restraint. Shapiro’s support for court expansion, however, challenges this vision, suggesting a willingness to trade judicial independence for political conformity.
A Radical Agenda and the Push for Judicial Overhaul
Proponents of court packing argue that the current Supreme Court lacks legitimacy in its rulings, particularly when they clash with public sentiment. This sentiment is echoed by Harvard professor Michael Klarman, who once proposed a radical plan to secure Democratic dominance for decades, warning that the court could act as an obstacle to his vision. Shapiro’s remarks on the topic reflect this growing frustration, as he claims the court has failed to represent the people’s voices. Yet, the push for expansion goes beyond reforming the judiciary; it aims to reshape the entire political landscape, ensuring that future decisions align with a leftward shift in governance.
Shapiro’s Role in the Democratic Transformation
Shapiro’s decision to support court packing places him in a league of Democratic leaders who have increasingly prioritized ideological purity over pragmatic compromise. This includes figures like James Carville, who famously declared that if Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices "on day one." Such bold assertions underscore a movement within the party that views the judiciary as a battleground for control, rather than an impartial arbiter of law.
While the current court has occasionally ruled against the Trump administration, Shapiro and his allies seem unbothered by these decisions, dismissing them as signs of institutional failure. In fact, his recent comments on the topic suggest that the court’s independence is a liability rather than a strength. By framing the Supreme Court as an obstacle to the people’s will, Shapiro has joined a growing chorus of Democrats who see the judiciary as an instrument for political change, rather than a guardian of constitutional balance.
The Consequences of Judicial Expansion
The push for court packing carries significant implications for the American political system. By expanding the Supreme Court, Democrats seek to ensure that future rulings reflect their agenda, potentially sidelining conservative justices and altering the trajectory of landmark decisions. This strategy has already begun to take shape, with the recent ruling on birthright citizenship serving as a case in point. Despite the court’s consistent record of upholding its principles, Shapiro and others argue that the decision should have been quicker and more aligned with public opinion.
Turley’s critique highlights the broader stakes of this movement, warning that it could lead to a permanent shift in the balance of power. The court, once seen as a symbol of judicial independence, risks becoming a tool for partisan dominance. Shapiro’s participation in this effort underscores his role in this transformation, even as he could have served as a bridge between moderate and radical factions within the Democratic Party. Instead, he has chosen to align with those who advocate for a more extreme vision of governance.
As the Democratic Party moves toward a more radical future, Shapiro’s actions serve as a cautionary tale. His decision to abandon principle in favor of court expansion reflects a broader trend of politicians prioritizing short-term gains over long-term stability. While the people’s voices are often cited as justification for change, the question remains: does this shift truly empower the public, or does it risk subordinating the judiciary to the will of the majority?
The Path Forward and the Democratic Dilemma
Shapiro’s journey from a potential moderate leader to a radical court-packing advocate illustrates the challenges facing Democrats in an increasingly polarized political climate. The pressure to conform to the left’s demands has led many to abandon their centrist roots, as seen in the party’s embrace of socialist policies and its willingness to challenge core constitutional principles. This dilemma—between ideological alignment and pragmatic governance—has become central to the Democratic Party’s identity, with Shapiro’s actions symbolizing the cost of yielding to the mob.
As the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of its founding, the debate over judicial reform takes on new urgency. The Framers envisioned a system that would withstand the tides of populism, but Shapiro’s support for court expansion suggests a willingness to compromise that vision. In doing so, he has positioned himself as another figure in the Democratic Party’s march toward radicalization, leaving the country to grapple with the consequences of a judiciary that may no longer serve as an independent check on power.
Conclusion: A Contender Lost to the Left
Shapiro’s moment on "Morning Joe" marked a turning point in his political career, as he chose to align with the radical left rather than stand as a moderating force. This decision has raised questions about his leadership potential and the direction of the Democratic Party. While his Jewish background may have contributed to his exclusion from higher office, it also positions him as a unique figure within the party’s shifting landscape. Yet, his support for court packing suggests that he may be more willing to accept the party’s radical agenda than to challenge it. As Turley argues, Shapiro could have been a contender for a more balanced future, but instead, he has become another voice in the Democratic movement’s drive to reshape the judiciary.
“I think we need radical reform that’s actually going to ensure that the voices of the people are heard from, that the voices of the people are represented in the three branches of government,” Shapiro said on MS NOW. “We don’t have that right now.”